Justification for strong atheism

[Beleth]

I would define the 'default mode' as being someone who just had their memory wiped clean and had to learn everything from scratch by the 3 criteria. In other words this fictional person knows nothing of the world and has to build his knowledge of it.

This is an interesting definition and I'd like to explore it a bit.

At this point the person would not believe Tokyo exists because he knows nothing of it.

I'd go one step further: the person would not even imagine Tokyo exists. There would be no reason for the meme "Tokyo exists" to have entered the memory-wiped person's head. So it's not a case of not believing it; it's a case of not being exposed to it.

In this scenario the person would quickly see ample evidence for the existence of Tokyo, even if he never actually saw Tokyo.

(emphasis mine)

Ahh, but that's key, isn't it? Without actually experiencing Tokyo first hand, they would find the same quality and quantity of evidence for the existence of Tokyo as they would for the existence of God.

There are pictures of Tokyo; there are paintings of God.
There are books about Tokyo; there are books about God.
There are people who have claimed to have seen Tokyo; I think you see what I'm getting at.

The one difference in evidence that they will find is that there aren't nearly as many books about how Tokyo doesn't exist as there are about how God dosn't exist.

I have never seen Tokyo, nor Alpha Centauri for that matter, but there is plenty of hard, testable evidence for the existence of both. The same could not be said of god.

Without actually visiting Tokyo, there is no hard, testable evidence for its existence either. It's all anecdotal. Reams and reams and reams of anecdotes, to be sure, but then there are reams and reams and reams of anecdotes about God too.

A 'default mode' person would see plenty of people claiming that god exists but who can offer no verifiable evidence for this. Depending on who he spoke to, he would be offered a range of gods to believe in - many of them mutually exclusive of each other. He might well conlude that the believers in these gods are equally fervent in their belief and so the logical conclusion is that, since they can't all be true, none are true.

Likewise, they could talk to plenty of people who (claimed to have) lived on different blocks of Tokyo, and have gotten a range of descriptions of Tokyo. It would be irrational, however, to conclude either that they can't all be true or that none of them are true. What would be more rational would be to conclude that each description was of a limited or slightly erroneous viewpoint, and that Tokyo is actually something else entirely - an aggregate of the viewpoints, perhaps, with a weeding out of the more contradictory ones.

If the mind-wiped person probed deeper into Tokyo, they might go down this line of questions:

Q: Has Tokyo always been there?
A: No, it was built by men.

Q: Can I meet these men?
A: No, they are either very important men who have no time for you, or they died long ago. If you are very lucky or work very hard to meet one, you might, some day. But there are no guarantees.

Q: If I can't meet them, why should I believe that they built Tokyo?
A: Well, someone built Tokyo, whether you can meet them or not.

This line of answers sounds perfectly reasonable when it's applied to "men" and "Tokyo", but substitute in "God" and "the universe", and all of the sudden it sounds strange and wrong to us. Would it sound just as strange and wrong to the mind-wiped person?


My point is this:
A mind-wiped person, using only the scientific method, his own experiences, and the rules of reason, will eventually realize that there are only two differences between belief in a place he hasn't been to like Tokyo, and belief in God:
1) It is reported to be easier to see (visit) Tokyo than it is to see God.
2) The anti-Tokyo literature is nonexistent; the anti-God literature is abundant.

Neither of those differences, taken separately or together, is sufficient to decide one way or the other whether either Tokyo or God exists.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

jjramsey,

AFAIK, strong atheism implies that there is not only an absence of good evidence of God's existence, but either positive evidence that indicates that God doesn't exist, or logical argument that shows that God cannot exist.

How about evidence that God is just a man-made concept? A fictional character?

Keep in mind that the very concept of strong atheism only applies to specific conceptions of god. One cannot claim to believe in, or not believe in, something which has not even been defined to them.

When it comes to all of the various conceptions of God which human beings have invented, what we are talking about are fictional characters, fundamentally no different that James Bond and Superman.

I think that there is plenty of evidence that none of the various conceptions of God out there represent anything which actually exists. The vast majority of them are so obviously anthropomorphic that there can really be no question that they are just man-made works of fiction. Those that are not, such as those dreamed up by various philosophers pondering the "true nature of reality", are also so hopelessly loaded with misguided human preconceptions as to have virtually no chance of representing anything real, and ones which attempt to avoid this problem by remaining as general and vague as possible (for example, Deism), end up being so poorly defined as for the question of their existence to be essentially meaningless.

Put another way, I consider myself a hard atheist because I have never heard of a conception of god which is not one of the following:

1) Obviously a fictional character.
2) So completely bogged down in metaphysical preconceptions as to have no real chance of accurately representing anything real.
3) Completely incoherent (much of the time God is defined in an implicitly self-contradictory way).
4) So poorly defined (or not defined at all) as to render the question of its existence utterly without meaning.

If somebody can present me with a conception of God which is not one of the above, I will gladly say that I am not a hard atheist with respect to that conception of god. It just hasn't happened yet.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Beleth]

I consider myself a hard atheist because I have never heard of a conception of god which is not one of the following:

1) Obviously a fictional character.
2) So completely bogged down in metaphysical preconceptions as to have no real chance of accurately representing anything real.
3) Completely incoherent (much of the time God is defined in an implicitly self-contradictory way).
4) So poorly defined (or not defined at all) as to render the question of its existence utterly without meaning.

If somebody can present me with a conception of God which is not one of the above, I will gladly say that I am not a hard atheist with respect to that conception of god. It just hasn't happened yet.

Okay, here's mine. I don't think any of those four descriptions apply to it. Let me know what you think.

God is an entity with only two guessable qualities:
1) He had just enough power and knowledge to create the Universe we inhabit.
2) He did so.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Beleth,

Okay, here's mine. I don't think any of those four descriptions apply to it. Let me know what you think.

God is an entity with only two guessable qualities:
1) He had just enough power and knowledge to create the Universe we inhabit.
2) He did so.

That falls under the heading of number (4): Too poorly defined for the question of its existence or non-existence to be meaningful.

You have not defined the God at all. You have merely stipulated a quality which you claim it has, and that quality is not even well-enough defined to establish whether such a quality could be meaningfully said to exist.

What does it mean for something to create the universe we inhabit?
What usages of "power" and "knowledge" are you using when you talk about something having enough of them for it to create the universe we inhabit?

I would say there is probably quite a bit of number (2) in here. I strongly suspect that if you attempt to clarify the above points so as to make your definition complete enough to be addressed, that you will find your clarifications are completely bound up in metaphysical preconceptions about the world which we have no real reason to believe are correct.

Incidentally, I used to be a Deist. The conception of God I believed in was similar to what you have proposed, though more formally presented, and without the presumption of any kind of intelligence (or knowledge). I stopped being a Deist when I realized that the existence of such a being is logically indistinguishable from its non-existence. That is actually exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I mentioned number (4).


Dr. Stupid

 

[bpesta22]

I dunno, I still think default mode is materialism. Were it that important, we could fly to tokyo and visit godzilla-- confirm it with our own senses. Same is true for any other material thing.

And, sure there are things I believe in that I can't sense directly (gravity, atoms, or even psychological constructs like personality, intelligence). But, I can then use the scientific method to verify the existence of those things indirectly.

And I take the argument about having faith in the accuracy of one's senses only so far (it usually ends when the other side's "faith" in his senses is nonetheless strong enough to prevent him from doing anything that would harm his person).

But if I can't sense it, or verify it indirectly via science, or deem it reasonable via deduction, then it's rational to assume it don't exist, and the burden's on anyone who claims otherwise.

Last point: take any other foolish thing we don't believe in, ranging from ghosts to esp to prayer working. Must we be agnostic about ghosts or esp? If we're comfortable "believing" esp doesn't exist, then by the same logic we should be comfortable believing gods dont exist (albeit willing to view any new evidence on the issue).

 

[jjramsey]

I dunno, I still think default mode is materialism. Were it that important, we could fly to tokyo and visit godzilla-- confirm it with our own senses. Same is true for any other material thing.

. . . if I can't sense it, or verify it indirectly via science, or deem it reasonable via deduction, then it's rational to assume it don't exist, and the burden's on anyone who claims otherwise.

Which is still basically the weak or negative atheist line of thinking. The essence of weak atheism, from what I can tell, is that one disbelieves in God on the grounds that the evidence for him is lacking, rather than on the grounds that evidence positively disproves his existence.

 

[stamenflicker]

jj,


ETA:

Ok provide some logical argument for why something I can't verify with my senses or science, nonetheless exists.

Primary argument: The economy is not real. I cannot see, touch, taste, hear, or smell "economy." The principals of the "economy" are based on totally socially constructed principles: supply and demand. A culture with no notion of supply and demand could equally create a bartering system based on the length of one's toenails, or they could subsist on no economy at all. The concept of "economy" leads to abuses and suffering worldwide and must be eliminated.

Now you might wish to argue that the economy is real. You go to the store. You place a $5 on the counter. You receive your Big Mac and fries. You would be incorrect in asserting that this proves that the economy is real, or that its founding principals are real. You are instead experiencing the utility of an unreal object, your country's very own personal Invisible Pink Economy.

Rejecting that "god" exists is logically as reasonable as objecting that the "economy" exists. Both items are empirically verifiable via their utility or function. Should the hard atheist choose to scratch "god" from the list of unempirical real items, he or she must develop a criteria for doing so, and must explain why other items, such as the economy remain.

ETA: Of course the economy is real, but a real what?

Flick

 

[Kopji]

ceo_esq
Hi and welcome back. Hope you are feeling better. I can't hope to ever be as through as you are on apologetics, but I took a few minutes to look up the highly rated charities you listed. (I'm sure they do a lot of good work in the world, and I'm not sure how productive it is to criticize people whose goal is to help.) But anyway, here's what some quick research turns up.

The Christian Aid Ministries seems as much missionary outreach as aid. The 99% only represents money going to program vs administrative. If the 'program' includes missionary work, that's what I'm claiming is inherently inefficient as actual aid providers. I do understand their belief that hymnals, prayer vestments, wine, crackers and stuff count as helping people's total spiritual well being. (I'd just disagree).

Christian Aid Ministries (99%)

What is the primary purpose of Christian Aid?
To encourage and strengthen New Testament-type Christianity in every nation, particularly where Christians are persecuted or few in number. Also, to establish a witness for our Lord in every nation where He has no people for His name.
Do you send out foreign missionaries?
Yes, hundreds of them, but not directly. We do not send North Americans to other nations. Rather, we collect funds from missionary-minded Christians here and send them to indigenous mission agencies in poor countries. They send out the missionaries.
http://www.christianaid.org/faq.asp

Operation Blessing looked pretty good on the surface, but is associated with Pat Robertson. If I contribute I help support his prestige and power. That would probably be enough of an argument for me to look elsewhere to contribute. The second link seems to be some criticism that he used their planes to fly diamond mining equipment into Africa. Maybe that's been cleared up?

Operation Blessing (99%)

Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation (OBI) is a non-profit 501 (c) (3) humanitarian organization based in Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA. Since 1978, Operation Blessing International has touched the lives of more than 179.7 million people in 96 countries and all 50 states, providing goods and services valued at more than $1.1 billion. Operation Blessing is governed by a national board of directors that includes founder M. G. "Pat" Robertson.

Mission:
Is to demonstrate God's love by alleviating human need and suffering in the United States and around the world.

In efforts to relieve human suffering we combat hunger, deprivation and physical affliction with the provision of food, clothing, shelter, medical care and other basic necessities of life. We also help facilitate the development of healthy, vibrant and self-sustaining communities by addressing larger issues of education, food security, potable water, employment, community health, and disaster mitigation projects. In every endeavor, OBI seeks to exemplify Christian compassion and benevolence while conforming to the highest standards of integrity.
http://www.ob.org/about/index.asp

Far from the media's gaze, Robertson has used the tax-exempt, nonprofit Operation Blessing as a front for his shadowy financial schemes, while exerting his influence within the GOP to cover his tracks. In 1994 he made an emotional plea on The 700 Club for cash donations to Operation Blessing to support airlifts of refugees from the Rwandan civil war to Zaire (now Congo). Reporter Bill Sizemore of The Virginian Pilot later discovered that Operation Blessing's planes were transporting diamond-mining equipment for the African Development Corporation, a Robertson-owned venture initiated with the cooperation of Zaire's then-dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050919/blumenthal

I've always had respect for the Catholic service groups, I know some workers personally and they seem like nice people of high integrity. I know, that's not a great reason but hey...

The CMMB does have a long and distinguished history, but they seem to have taken a recent turn into the politics world in 2001. The ethics seems complex to me and might be ok, but they are accepting government funds and then producing reports that encourage government funding of faith based organizations. That seems a bit murky to me, I'd feel better if they stuck to their original mission.

Catholic Medical Mission Board (96%)
2005

CMMB commissions Faith in Action, an international report that offers the first systematic analysis of expert opinion surrounding the role of faith-based organizations (FBOs) in response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The report is conducted by the Global Health Council and launched in Washington, DC.

The NCCF does not seem to be a charity per se at all. It manages (Christian) charitable investment accounts. Seems a good organization but I don't see how it compares with organizations like Salvation Army. So, 'apples and oranges' on that one.

National Christian Charitable Foundation (95%)
The ministry of The National Christian Foundation is to enable faithful stewards to give wisely to further the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Faithful stewards are people who understand what they hold belongs to God. They have made a decision to share these resources for the purpose of helping others or spreading the Gospel to bring people to Christ.

CRS is highly respected, but when I linked to the financial information area on their site it came up with a 'file not found error'. Yes yes, delightfully ironic. I'm sure they will fix it soon. Not finding the information on their site, I ran across some numbers on a Catholicsforchoice page. Do they really receive 77% of their funding from the federal government? This would seem to detract from their value as an argument for Christian charity.

Catholic Relief Services (94%)

The fundamental motivating force in all activities of CRS is the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it pertains to the alleviation of human suffering, the development of people and the fostering of charity and justice in the world. The policies and programs of the agency reflect and express the teaching of the Catholic Church. At the same time, Catholic Relief Services assists persons on the basis of need, not creed, race or nationality.

Financial information:

http://www.crs.org/about_us/financial_information/index.cfm
File not found: /about_us/financial_information/index.cfm

Please try the following:
Enable Robust Exception Information to provide greater detail about the source of errors. In the Administrator, click Debugging & Logging > Debugging Settings, and select the Robust Exception Information option.
Check the ColdFusion documentation to verify that you are using the correct syntax.
Search the Knowledge Base to find a solution to your problem...

The Church also has a profound ability to influence public policy on development aid. In most countries, there is a Catholic agency working internationally to provide development assistance and humanitarian aid. These agencies largely are funded by government. In the U.S., for instance, Catholic Relief Services, with an annual budget of $290,000,000, receives about 77% of its resources from the Federal government. Is this a Catholic or a government agency?
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/new/inthenews/0599FK-VaticanAndReproHealth.htm

And once again, I have this uneasy feeling about receiving money from the government and then lobbying for faith based organizations.

But I'll stand by my assertion that there is an inherent inefficiency in religious based aid organizations, not evil or anything though. They see their aid mission as a subset of a larger spiritual mission.

 

[ceo_esq]

ceo_esq
Hi and welcome back. Hope you are feeling better. I can't hope to ever be as through as you are on apologetics, but I took a few minutes to look up the highly rated charities you listed. (I'm sure they do a lot of good work in the world, and I'm not sure how productive it is to criticize people whose goal is to help.) But anyway, here's what some quick research turns up.

The Christian Aid Ministries seems as much missionary outreach as aid. The 99% only represents money going to program vs administrative. If the 'program' includes missionary work, that's what I'm claiming is inherently inefficient as actual aid providers. I do understand their belief that hymnals, prayer vestments, wine, crackers and stuff count as helping people's total spiritual well being. (I'd just disagree).

Christian Aid Ministries (99%)


Operation Blessing looked pretty good on the surface, but is associated with Pat Robertson. If I contribute I help support his prestige and power. That would probably be enough of an argument for me to look elsewhere to contribute. The second link seems to be some criticism that he used their planes to fly diamond mining equipment into Africa. Maybe that's been cleared up?

Operation Blessing (99%)




I've always had respect for the Catholic service groups, I know some workers personally and they seem like nice people of high integrity. I know, that's not a great reason but hey...

The CMMB does have a long and distinguished history, but they seem to have taken a recent turn into the politics world in 2001. The ethics seems complex to me and might be ok, but they are accepting government funds and then producing reports that encourage government funding of faith based organizations. That seems a bit murky to me, I'd feel better if they stuck to their original mission.



The NCCF does not seem to be a charity per se at all. It manages (Christian) charitable investment accounts. Seems a good organization but I don't see how it compares with organizations like Salvation Army. So, 'apples and oranges' on that one.


CRS is highly respected, but when I linked to the financial information area on their site it came up with a 'file not found error'. Yes yes, delightfully ironic. I'm sure they will fix it soon. Not finding the information on their site, I ran across some numbers on a Catholicsforchoice page. Do they really receive 77% of their funding from the federal government? This would seem to detract from their value as an argument for Christian charity.



And once again, I have this uneasy feeling about receiving money from the government and then lobbying for faith based organizations.

But I'll stand by my assertion that there is an inherent inefficiency in religious based aid organizations, not evil or anything though. They see their aid mission as a subset of a larger spiritual mission.

Thanks, Kopji.

With regard specifically to CRS, it would not surprise me to learn that a majority of their funding came from the federal government (bearing in mind that much of that "funding" is not cash but the value of donated food and goods paid for with public money and distributed by CRS). I think the same is probably true of many U.S.-based NGOs devoted specifically to overseas humanitarian work, because a substantial portion of the sizeable U.S. foreign aid budget gets channeled directly to such NGOs. I don't think CRS is in a materially different position from non-religious U.S.-based overseas-relief NGOs.

Anyhow, it was not my intention to evaluate specifically any of these charities, simply to point out that the case for the inefficiency of religious charities is far from complete.

None of this is an exercise in apologetics, of course.

 

[wolfgirl]

I don't think this is strong atheism you're talking about. I've gotta say, I'm about the most militant atheist I know (personally), but even I don't try to say that I KNOW there ARE NO gods. I just have no reason to believe that there ARE gods. I agree with the default position having to be "not gods" without proof that there are, much like the default has to be that there aren't purple unicorns without proof that there are. I have a strong opinion that there are no purple unicorns, just as I have a strong opinion that there are no gods, but I cannot prove either assertion to be true. I simply feel that I won't believe in either unless someone can give me a pretty damn good reason to do so!

 

[Beady]

Just a thought. Did you notice the title of this thread? Could it be that even the OP thinks his philosophy has to be justified, ie that it can't stand on its own?

 

[jjramsey]

Just a thought. Did you notice the title of this thread? Could it be that even the OP thinks his philosophy has to be justified, ie that it can't stand on its own?

Not necessarily. If one says "I hold position X" and then justifies it by saying that X is true because of various reasons, then it hardly follows that X is likely false.

 

[Kopji]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Thanks, Kopji.

---

My pleasure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceo_esq

With regard specifically to CRS... -snip-
... I don't think CRS is in a materially different position from non-religious U.S.-based overseas-relief NGOs.

---

I agree, they seem very secular. I was probably remembering an argument someone made somewhere about faith based charities being an indicator of faith based giving. I hate to think there was a point I could have made if I'd only known 77% came from government funds...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Anyhow, it was not my intention to evaluate specifically any of these charities, simply to point out that the case for the inefficiency of religious charities is far from complete.

---

Point taken, specifically reviewing the charities was a sorta fun exercise though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceo_esq

None of this is an exercise in apologetics, of course.

---

More like an indication that I need to get more sleep.

take care

 

[Thomas]

More like an indication that I need to get more sleep.

Naaah, your review was excellent, your only problem is that you might be suffering from a chronical disease called "Much-too-nice"

 

[Beady]

Not necessarily. If one says "I hold position X" and then justifies it by saying that X is true because of various reasons, then it hardly follows that X is likely false.

I dunno. Justification and explanation are two different things. I drift between atheism and agnosticism and I don't "justify" it to anyone because it's none of their damned business; it's "rightness" satisfies me, and that's all I care about. If you ask me to "explain" it, however, I'd be happy to oblige.

Now, I suppose you could argue that at one time I justified my outlook to myself, and perhaps you would be correct. However, the OP is talking about presenting a view to other people, and he apparently feels that "strong atheism" requires more justification than it does explanation (although that's not necessarilly proving true, since this group will argue the definition of anything -- I know, define "anything").

 

[jjramsey]

Justification and explanation are two different things.

Well, yes. "Explanation" is a more general term than "justification." "Justification," especially in the context of the OP, is explaining the reasons why a belief is warranted.

 

[Beady]

Well, yes. "Explanation" is a more general term than "justification." "Justification," especially in the context of the OP, is explaining the reasons why a belief is warranted.

It is also inherently acknowledging that the reasons *need* to be explained.

As for the OP, I think I tend to agree that "strong atheism" really is a religion of sorts. Standard religions are explanations of what we see around us. "Weak" atheism is a rejection of the religious explanations for lack of convincing evidence. "Strong" atheism, it seems to me, is a rejection of the religious explanations because of percieved contradictory evidence. What is that contradictory evidence? Beats me, but the OP apparently thinks he's got some. Anyway, both "Religion" and "strong atheism" are based on contradictory interpretations of the same evidence and are, ultimately, matters of faith.

 

[jjramsey]

As for the OP, I think I tend to agree that "strong atheism" really is a religion of sorts.

I'd say that both strong and weak atheism are technically philosophical positions, not religions. Militant atheism, on the other hand, tends to resemble a religious movement. I suppose that militant atheists are more likely to be strong atheists, but Randi, for example, is fairly militant (or at least strident), yet is a weak atheist nonetheless.

 

[Bri]

Not that it's necessarily important to the discussion as long as there is an understanding of terms, but it might help to clarify the concepts of agnosticism and atheism. According to most sources (here is one), weak atheism is a lack of a belief one way or the other as to the existance of gods, and strong atheism is a positive belief that there are no gods. Agnosticism is the assertion that we cannot know for certain whether or not gods exists. Most weak and strong atheists are also agnostic, although there might be some exceptions where a strong atheist would claim that it is impossible for any god to exist.

The link posted by jjramsey indicates Randi's agnosticism, but it is difficult to tell whether Randi considers himself a weak or strong atheist. He seems to hold a positive belief (an opinion based on a lack of evidence for a god) that there are probably no gods, rather than witholding a belief either way as a weak atheist would.

Furthermore, Randi admits that a claim that there is no diety (which, if made as a statement of fact rather than opinion would be a gnostic statement) would require evidence which cannot be offered, and the JREF has a stance against any claim for which no evidence is offered. Therefore, it sounds as though Randi is stating that a gnostic belief (one claimed as fact) would be a belief based on faith whether it be the belief that there is a god or the belief that there are no gods.

-Bri

 

[Kopji]

Naaah, your review was excellent, your only problem is that you might be suffering from a chronical disease called "Much-too-nice"

Humm, nice people go away when I treat them poorly, and are then replaced by nasty people who follow me around and correct my spelling and grammar.

There is no such word as 'chronical', you probably meant 'chronic'.
See?

When I get angry or emotional my posts usually come out as sort of a freeform prose instead of the nasty and abrasive effect I'm looking for. I try to use that to good effect though.

Pat Robertson spoke
We listened but heard no sense
Dogs barked with meaning